I pity the pour souls who were forced to use your "huge and widely used" web app that was compatible only with IE. It's clear you didn't do your homework before starting the project. ASP.NET web apps do not require having the.NET runtime on the client any more than PHP web apps require installing PHP on the client. (read: they don't)
All of the native framework web controls have two distinct rendering modes. One is for "uplevel" browsers which includes any javascript/DHTML/etc. goodness that the latest browsers support. The other is for "downlevel" browsers and basically renders everything in something like HTML 3.2 compatibility. The server runtime detects which mode to use based on a section of the machine.config called browserCaps (essentially the.NET equivalent of browscap.ini). The default values stored in the machine.config basically only recognize 5.x+ versions of IE as "uplevel" browsers.
Updated versions of the browserCaps info can be found here: http://www.codeproject.com/aspnet/browsercaps.asp It should be noted you can choose to either replace the data in your machine.config to make it a system-wide update, or just add the same data to your app's web.config file.
While I can't speak for any other university, the majority of the required class software (especially the large packages from Microsoft and Adobe) at my university are available for free use to students in any one of many computer labs on campus.
I think I've only heard of a single class where the required class software wasn't already in the lab. And in that case, the professor had already negotiated a site license with the developer and was able to give free copies to any of his students.
When it comes right down to it, there are two reasons a student would buy the software. One reason is for the *convenience* of being able to work from home. And remember kids...convenience costs money. The other reason would be that the student is going to use the software beyond the duration and scope of the class. In that case, the student would've ended up buying the package anyway regardless of the class requirement.
XML Functionality??? I'm pretty sure the only thing that is XML based is the config file for the new patching program. But that has nothing to do with the actual game itself.
DirectX 8 is the *only* reason it doesn't work under Win95. All Verant wanted to do was update their graphics engine. It's apparent that one of the grunts that was supposed to do the research beforehand didn't bother to realize that Win95 is NOT SUPPORTED.
So basically, it's not like Verant just *decided* to stop supporting Win95....they just neglected to realize the consequences of building the new engine with DX8.
Napster will probably die. And as far as i'm concerned, they *should* die, because they really are attempting to make money on piracy.
When was Napster ever trying to make money?? You don't pay for an account. They don't have advertisements. Where are they making money?? It seems to me that Napster was written solely for the purpose of being written and the only thing that's happened since is that the company has lost money due to all these crazy lawsuits.
I've had my PJB-100 for about a week now and one thing that kind of puzzled me about the interface software is that there is an option when you click on a track to "Export Track" which then opens a file dialog box as if to save the mp3 back onto your system. However, after pressing OK, you get a non-descriptive program error.
Conclusion: The PJB probably has the capability of transferring both ways, they've just put a lock on the software that won't let it and it's only a matter of time before someone either cracks that lock or writes different interface software (perhaps for other OS's as well =)
In short, it seems like the original design for the PJB would've been just about perfect. Then, the legal department got their hands on it and forced a bunch of restrictions.
Food for thought: The interface software is currently at version 1.5.1. According to the history file, the PJB seemed to have support for an Ethernet interface right up until 1.5.0.
Slashdot Mirror
I pity the pour souls who were forced to use your "huge and widely used" web app that was compatible only with IE. It's clear you didn't do your homework before starting the project. ASP.NET web apps do not require having the .NET runtime on the client any more than PHP web apps require installing PHP on the client. (read: they don't)
.NET equivalent of browscap.ini). The default values stored in the machine.config basically only recognize 5.x+ versions of IE as "uplevel" browsers.
All of the native framework web controls have two distinct rendering modes. One is for "uplevel" browsers which includes any javascript/DHTML/etc. goodness that the latest browsers support. The other is for "downlevel" browsers and basically renders everything in something like HTML 3.2 compatibility. The server runtime detects which mode to use based on a section of the machine.config called browserCaps (essentially the
Updated versions of the browserCaps info can be found here:
http://www.codeproject.com/aspnet/browsercaps.asp
It should be noted you can choose to either replace the data in your machine.config to make it a system-wide update, or just add the same data to your app's web.config file.
On a related note, you can find an updated version of the original browscap.ini here:
http://www.garykeith.com/browsers/downloads.asp
Search the web, look up things in the MSDN Library, and post questions on the mailing lists/newsgroups. =)
While I can't speak for any other university, the majority of the required class software (especially the large packages from Microsoft and Adobe) at my university are available for free use to students in any one of many computer labs on campus.
I think I've only heard of a single class where the required class software wasn't already in the lab. And in that case, the professor had already negotiated a site license with the developer and was able to give free copies to any of his students.
When it comes right down to it, there are two reasons a student would buy the software. One reason is for the *convenience* of being able to work from home. And remember kids...convenience costs money. The other reason would be that the student is going to use the software beyond the duration and scope of the class. In that case, the student would've ended up buying the package anyway regardless of the class requirement.
XML Functionality??? I'm pretty sure the only thing that is XML based is the config file for the new patching program. But that has nothing to do with the actual game itself.
Am I missing something here?
DirectX 8 is the *only* reason it doesn't work under Win95. All Verant wanted to do was update their graphics engine. It's apparent that one of the grunts that was supposed to do the research beforehand didn't bother to realize that Win95 is NOT SUPPORTED.
So basically, it's not like Verant just *decided* to stop supporting Win95....they just neglected to realize the consequences of building the new engine with DX8.
And actually, I think Everquest set a new peak load a few weeks ago with around 94,000+ simultaneous players.
And yes, I am one of those addicted.
Napster will probably die. And as far as i'm concerned, they *should* die, because they really are attempting to make money on piracy.
When was Napster ever trying to make money?? You don't pay for an account. They don't have advertisements. Where are they making money?? It seems to me that Napster was written solely for the purpose of being written and the only thing that's happened since is that the company has lost money due to all these crazy lawsuits.
AMEN....that's why I bought mine!
=)
I've had my PJB-100 for about a week now and one thing that kind of puzzled me about the interface software is that there is an option when you click on a track to "Export Track" which then opens a file dialog box as if to save the mp3 back onto your system. However, after pressing OK, you get a non-descriptive program error.
Conclusion: The PJB probably has the capability of transferring both ways, they've just put a lock on the software that won't let it and it's only a matter of time before someone either cracks that lock or writes different interface software (perhaps for other OS's as well =)
In short, it seems like the original design for the PJB would've been just about perfect. Then, the legal department got their hands on it and forced a bunch of restrictions.
Food for thought: The interface software is currently at version 1.5.1. According to the history file, the PJB seemed to have support for an Ethernet interface right up until 1.5.0.